Crescent Energy vs EQT
CRGY and EQT side by side, both in crude petroleum and natural gas. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CRGY and EQT compare
EQT is the larger company, worth 7.3 times as much as Crescent Energy ($34.1B against $4.7B).
EQT grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.3% versus 24.3% for Crescent Energy).
EQT keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 28.4% compared with 1.3% at Crescent Energy.
Both pay dividends: Crescent Energy yields 3.4% and EQT 1.2%.
EQT scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 7 for Crescent Energy), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CRGY | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.7B | $34.1B |
| Share price | $14.20 | $54.54 |
| Change, 1 year | 74.4% | 4.5% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 165% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.85 | 0.72 |
| Employees | 1,066 | 1,523 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 12.7× |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 3.6× |
| P/B | – | 1.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.4× (better) | 6.4× |
| P/FCF | – | 9.1× |
| FCF yield | – | 11.0% |
| Fair value | $30.25 | $60.67 |
| Margin of safety | 53.1% (better) | 10.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.3% | 32.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 36.5% (better) | 23.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 137% (better) | 137% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 134% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 83.7% |
| Operating margin | 20.6% | 42.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.3% | 28.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 39.4% |
| Return on equity | – | 11.6% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 10.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.24 | 0.82 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.5× | 10.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.94 (better) | 0.67 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.01 | 2.37 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.4% (better) | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | 256% | 15.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 84.3% |
| Buyback yield | −0.01% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% (better) | 1.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.3% | 94.3% |
| Held by insiders | 34.8% | 0.69% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$402M | −$24.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 17.1% | 3.6% |
Go deeper
- CRGY stock overview
- CRGY income statement
- CRGY valuation and score
- EQT stock overview
- EQT income statement
- EQT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.